Printable View
Ok guys as you can tell I went and saw this movie the other day and thought it was interesting and I've heard several different stories on how this battle actually went. Any one know the truer facts of it because I highly doubt there were 10,000 spartans since spartans can only be from sparta and the baby has to be perfect so i just wanna know.
:help: Please fill me in on all this :help:
There were 300 spartans. The rest was men from other greek cities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jkarinen
They were hand picked by Leonidas, all having children already so their loss would not be so significant. This was a kamikaze and glory squad if you like, to hold the Persians back.
Themopylae was a small pass, so they held on there for days, I think, before giving way due to a Greek traitor who revealed a pass that enabled a pincer type assault.
It's said that they ended up fighting even if they lost their weapons, with their teeth and so on. Probably rubbish though, as they all died so the only people to record it would be persians (this source is greek iirc).
I also think there were some Thespians there, and perhaps some Perioikoi and Helots. But I can't be sure.
Indeed, there were 6000 Greeks fighting a lot less than 250 000 Persians.
On a side note, it has got to suck to fight and die for your country, providing the bulk of the defense of your homeland, and then be forgotten in the mists of time in favor of a bunch of neighborhood jocks, just because they enjoyed the post-mortem patronage of some old bearded geezer with a big mouth.
My interest in history has had me knowing quite a bit more than my peers who loved it at school, but I still am going to do some research. :book:
Not all Spartans died. One of them (injured) survived because he hid into bush. He was accused of being coward and public pression on him was so big that later he died unded Plateje battle when charging alone on whole Persians army.
I've heard a new rumor going around that the spartan killed so many of the enemy troops that they lost the will to fight and so on
Traitor is a harsh word. Consider the farmers who would have been in the neighborhood, who are suddenly the victim of a huge army using up whatever harvests they have. If showing the Persians a back route means saviour from certain starvation, then so be it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Avicenna
Not to mention that most people living in Sparta (that is their whole country, not just the city) hated the Spartans, though naturally the Spartans themselves did not hate the Spartans. Also, and a little related to what I just said, many people talk about the 700 Thespians who stayed behind and fought against the Persians, what many forget or seem not to know is that there was also Thebans (I'm not sure how many, at least 100 I think) there. However, unlike the Thespians, the Thebans were not their of their own free will, they were in fact kept their as hostages of sorts, or just prisoners, by the Spartans, when Ephialtes and the Immortals were drawing near the Thebans deserted to the Persians and fought the Spartans.
I've heard/read that the battle of Salamis (a sea battle) was what truly broke the back of the Persians and not Thermopylae, because after Salamis Xerxes went back across the sea together with a large portion of his army, which enabled the Greeks to defeat the Persians at PlataeaQuote:
I've heard a new rumor going around that the spartan killed so many of the enemy troops that they lost the will to fight and so on
As I said, there were Thebans there, and they survived as they joined the Persians near the end... but I don't think this fighting with their teeth and such is very accurate, if they lost their weapons it seems more likely they would grab a weapon from some dead guy, seeing as the Spartans were so über-l33t there must have been a carpet of dead Persians on the ground.Quote:
It's said that they ended up fighting even if they lost their weapons, with their teeth and so on. Probably rubbish though, as they all died so the only people to record it would be persians (this source is greek iirc).
That is a fact. The real question is just how much time greeks bought with Thermopylae. If the battle hadn't happened, would that have changed something?Quote:
Originally Posted by Randarkmaan
Well, we wouldn't be talking about this movie for starters...Quote:
That is a fact. The real question is just how much time greeks bought with Thermopylae. If the battle hadn't happened, would that have changed something?
Thermopylae is just a propaganda story. What in reality was nothing but the brushing aside of an insignificant but annoying rear guard of the Greeks by the victorious Persian army was blown up by the extremely pro-Greek Herodotus (who had political motives to do so) a century or so later to the status of epic struggle for freedom by all Greeks together. None of which is true in any way.
Really?
The fact that it has been mystified in history and used as propaganda, is a testiment to it's importance. Greeks standing side by side, at a small pass, halt for a few days the largest force ever to invade Greece is no small feet, even if it was not a unifying force.
"Greeks" standing "side-by-side"? First off, we were talking, mostly, Spartans and their vassals. Secondly, there was no such thing as "Greek" at the time. There were 1300 city-states in Ancient Greece, a lot of them with their own little dialect making mutual intelligibility low -- and only 30 of them took part in the Greco-Persian War.
Lastly -- and most importantly -- please explain to me how this battle was important in any form, way, or shape. A couple hundred Greeks taking a stand against a superior foe. Honorable and stuff, but when it comes down to it, it was utterly useless and they got crushed by a foe superior in numbers and, obviously, tactics, as well. A foe that, to boot, didn't like to fight the old melee and preferred to engage from a distance with bow and arrow -- so the story about "hordes of Persians charging" is also a load of lies.
No, Thermopylae was an insignificant little skirmish with a foregone conclusion that was later picked up by the world's first historian, who needed to create a common identity (and enemy!) amongst Greek intellectuals -- just when there was a ceasefire in the Peloponnesian War which was ripping up Greece.
I beg to differ in many points here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
First off, even if the Greeks Evolved in a City-State fashion they were nevertheless all part of one Culture, the hellenic culture.
Yes greek may have been spoken a bit differently between a thessalian Shepherd and an Athenian Philosopher, they both did speak a common Hellenic Language never theless.
Even today in Greece how people speak in big cities and small remote villages is different the pronounciation of many words differs, but that is a phaenomenon hapening in most Counties, and does not support the classification of these various people in their own little boxes as to say that they were not, by todays definition, a same nation with a same culture.
Saying what you are saying is the same as saying that there is no Scotish Culture because they were but a bunch of unrelated Clans...and we very well know that is not the case. Even if the Scots fought eachother, they were never the less all Scots. Same goes with the Greeks of that time. And pleae dont even get me started on the sourounding cultures of the Thracians.
How was the battle significant? I suggest you read more about the meaning of "sacrifice".
Independently of their own motives, and independently of how much damage they really did to the Persian Invading Army, they did give their lives for a set of values, that gave not only the incentive of Greek people of all around the place to Unite but also demonstarated that one Greek City State, independently of its own Traditions and Laws as well as Philosophy of the World, was nevertheless willing to sacrifice its own people for something that was common to all, if nothing else, their ancestral lands and their independent and sovereign lives (yes each different with their own version of it).
If Herodotus chose to take these acts as an exemple later on, well he pcked something that had probably been forgotten by many in their own pursuit of their own agenda during the inter City-State wars that followed.
His argument was that of, it really does not matter who's values and religeous beliefs to this or that god or even political systems is better or not, because let us remember that when foreign barbarian invaded our soil, all that did not matter and a bunch of people chose to give their lives in order to preserve a whole, and that whole is our common identity, we are greeks in all our different colors and ways of looking at life, beliefs and actions, we do have nevertheless a common hellenistic identity.
back in those times, all citizens of a city-state partouk in the political decision making. The athenians did not have representative democracy, they simply had Democracy, all 40,000 Athenian citisens met at the eclesia and debated and listened to one another during the debates.
Propaganda was not as much as possible as it is it today, because everyone was there, everyone was part of the process and most importantly everyone was Informed.
@Jikarinen
These are some links to Historical accounts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerxes_I_of_Persia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonidas
Additional Documentation for Context.
Places
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thespiae
Related:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Themistocles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molon_labe
Subsequent Battles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plataea
Happy reading! :)
@Baba Ga'on
These are for you :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language
This is all info at hand easelly accessible, for more, please look more in to your Local or national Library, as well as Read books from the respective countries.
Learning Greek and/or Persian can also help.
While I wouldn't go as far as Baba Ga'on, I do agree with him that the battle is overrated and shamelesly glorified by Herodotus. What were his motives, I don't want to guess, but we all know that Herodotus isn't very "reliable" as a historian.
True, BUT...Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
Those 30 states represented what portion of the population?
Consider Athens and Sparta had similar parity.
Athens had slaves and a smaller portion of the city was citizens. That smaller portion is quoted as being 40,000.
Sparta is said to have had around 10,000 warrior citizens.
Now lets assume each city-state had 10,000 warrior citizens (smaller then athens, but as large as Sparta) would mean that the city-states had a combined population of 13 million (of just citizens who were adult males). Now if you factor in females, slaves, children you get a massive number of more then 50 million.
I suspect that the vast majority of city-states were tiny. Sparta and Athens were to Greece what China and USA are to the world... rather larger then average.
So the 30 states fighting quite possibly accounted for 60 to 80 percent of the population.
So, you have sources...Quote:
so the story about "hordes of Persians charging" is also a load of lies.
The Athenian democracy was sort of representative actually. First of all society was divided into 4 echelons (or whatever you want to call it), with the richest on the top and the poorest on the bottom, the 3 richest echelons served as hoplites in war, while the poor were light infantry and sailors. Through the reforms of Solon, right of voting was extended to every free male citizen, the citizens voted for who was to sit in a sort of council thing (don't remember the name), however people from the lowest echelon could not be elected, though they could vote.Quote:
back in those times, all citizens of a city-state partouk in the political decision making. The athenians did not have representative democracy, they simply had Democracy, all 40,000 Athenian citisens met at the eclesia and debated and listened to one another during the debates.
Propaganda was not as much as possible as it is it today, because everyone was there, everyone was part of the process and most importantly everyone was Informed.
Democracy sooned gained popularity throughout the Greek world, but "tyrants" (a greek equivalient to the way the modern term dictator is used) often got to power, even in Athens.
However this (democracy) did never happen in Sparta, and it came to be that Sparta was the only remaining kingdom in Greece, though true power was held by an appointed council of nobles.
Anyway what I'm unsure of is wether the Greek victory in the Greco-Persian war saved democracy, what it saved was Greece at the time and it allowed Greek culture and thinking to continue to flourish because they were not put under foreign domination. We have to remember that from the point Greece was conquered by Rome to modern times they have not been a democracy, just monarchies (except when the Romans were a republic, but only the people of Rome had voting privileges I think).
I don't really think this is what we were discussing here in this topic, but I just felt like continuing writing when I first started.
There's a very good reason why the battle of Thermopylae has been held in such high esteem by historians...
True, the physical and material impact of Thermopylae on the war was quite small. The losses suffered by the Persian army were considerable but not enough to keep it from sweeping through the rest of Greece and beyond. The stand at Thermopylae was simply a delaying action meant to buy time for the city states beyond the pass so that they could prepare their defenses or in Athens' case, prepare for evacuation. The successful delaying action at Thermopylae also coincided with the successful blockade of the Persian fleet just off the coast, proving that the Hellenic efforts on both land and sea were mutually dependent. Add to the mix a little help from mother nature in the form of a massive storm that claimed a large number of Persian ships and suddenly Xerxes' unstoppable Persian juggernaut found itself stumbling in the face of a relatively small amount of resistance.
On the other hand the psychological significance of Thermopylae was positively enormous. The idea that such a relatively small number of men could hold off a vastly numerically superior enemy for three days seems quite reasonable to us but back then there were few armchair generals around with several thousand years of military history on their bookshelves to provide Leonidas or Xerxes with some historical references. Clearly the qualititative differences between an army of professional and citizen soldiers and that of conscripts and slaves had never really been put to the test prior to Thermopylae (Marathon excepted). Propaganda or historical revisionism aside Xerxes must have been fuming with rage over the inability of his Persian host to break through the pass at Thermopylae and the Athenian navy off the coast. Xerxes lost several relatives and a good portion of his best troops at Thermopylae and his subsequent dessecration of Leonidas' body, a fellow monarch who died honorably in combat, was a shockingly disrespectful act and wholly uncharacteristic of a Persian emperor. Victory or not Xerxes was obviously beside himself over the losses he suffered during the battle.
Looking beyond the act of defiance in the face of overwhelming odds you must also consider that the ancient Greeks took death alot more seriously than those of us living in the monotheistic dominated present where the idea that an immortal soul can be granted eternal peace in a place called Heaven. The ancient Greeks believed the after-life was a dark and dreadful place where the souls of both the decent and the wicked wandered aimlessly in Hades. The idea that the Greeks who fought at Thermopylae to the bitter end would willingly sacrifice their bodies and send their souls to such a place makes their sacrifice even more impressive.
Above all the notion that a Spartan king, a few hundred hand picked Spartans, several hundred Thespians and other Greeks, all free men who in the past hated each other almost as much as they hated foreigners, would choose to lay down their lives in a seemingly futile act of defiance is simply astonishing. From the Persian perspective this collective act of self-sacrifice must have been mind boggling. Who knows what the average Persian soldier thought of the Greeks after that battle? Prior to Thermopylae one could chalk up Darius' loss at Marathon to bad luck or chance but three days at Thermopylae were awfully hard to dismiss. Persian morale must have taken a serious dive after Thermopylae, just imagine the rumors and expressions of wild imagination that spread amongst Xerxes' decidedly superstitious and uneducated army after the battle.
Similarly, we can look to the Japanese bushido code and the advent of the kamikaze pilot during WW2 as being equally dubious in terms of their military value but their combined impact upon Allied morale cannot be stressed enough. In light of the incredible tenacity with which the Japanese fought the US on Iwo Jima and Okinawa the US government was desperately looking to end the conflict prior to an actual invasion of the Japanese home islands.
Never underestimate the value of morale in warfare.
Really now? I guess you read the wrong article, for Ancient Greek (as opposed to the modern Greek language) was divided into several main dialect groups which had a very different form of pronunciation and even writing. Attic is the one that most Western students learn today, but there were Doric, Aeolic, Thessalian and Northwestern dialects to deal with, as well. All of which had their own subdivisions which were also often very hard to understand for the different speakers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar
We are also talking of a period of over twenty-five hundred years ago. Even (a much smaller period of) five hundred years ago, the people that now inhabit the country that is the Netherlands could not understand each other if they crossed a provincial border, and if you go back another three hundred years you'd find instances of people not being able to understand jack of what was being said if they travelled to the next bloody village.
The chance, therefore, that the so-called "Greeks" (a modern term rooted in the 18th-century ideology of nationalism) could understand each other -- even if most of them spoke Doric (some spoke Thessalian) -- was pretty damn small, indeed.
Simple answer: no.Quote:
How was the battle significant? I suggest you read more about the meaning of "sacrifice".
Independently of their own motives, and independently of how much damage they really did to the Persian Invading Army, they did give their lives for a set of values, that gave not only the incentive of Greek people of all around the place to Unite but also demonstarated that one Greek City State, independently of its own Traditions and Laws as well as Philosophy of the World, was nevertheless willing to sacrifice its own people for something that was common to all, if nothing else, their ancestral lands and their independent and sovereign lives (yes each different with their own version of it).
If Herodotus chose to take these acts as an exemple later on, well he pcked something that had probably been forgotten by many in their own pursuit of their own agenda during the inter City-State wars that followed.
Less simple answer: no. You see, this entire idea of sacrifice for freedom and all that was an invention of later generations, something pioneered by Herodotus and carried on strongly by the proponents of Hellenism (not to mention future Greek nationalists). It's a propaganda story that you're telling here, friend, something that I just debunked.
Inspiring, honorable, glorious, dulce et decorum est etc., etc., yada yada... but all values superimposed upon the event by centuries upon centuries of misinformation and propaganda, all based on that one piece of work delivered by our good friend Herodotus.Quote:
His argument was that of, it really does not matter who's values and religeous beliefs to this or that god or even political systems is better or not, because let us remember that when foreign barbarian invaded our soil, all that did not matter and a bunch of people chose to give their lives in order to preserve a whole, and that whole is our common identity, we are greeks in all our different colors and ways of looking at life, beliefs and actions, we do have nevertheless a common hellenistic identity.
Thermopylae was an act of Spartan honor (e tan epi tas and all that) and Thespian bravery... and general stupidity. A small rear guard action that didn't effect anything in the long term.
This is meaningful to the debate in what way?Quote:
back in those times, all citizens of a city-state partouk in the political decision making. The athenians did not have representative democracy, they simply had Democracy, all 40,000 Athenian citisens met at the eclesia and debated and listened to one another during the debates.
Of course... Herodotus was extremely well-informed -- one hundred years later, without any kind of way (not to forget motivation!) to carry out empirical research of any kind.Quote:
Propaganda was not as much as possible as it is it today, because everyone was there, everyone was part of the process and most importantly everyone was Informed.
The man wrote down fairy tales with real cores, my friend -- not facts. A quarter of a million men from a place which at the time likely had only a couple million inhabitants in the first place, Amazons, a tribe of men with one leg... everything except elves, wizards and aliens.
EDIT: Reading the additional posts in this thread, I see that many, many people base themselves on Herodotus to comment. As I've already explained the political motivations the man had to create the image of self-sacrifice for a Hellas united against a common foe (unity was a scarce commodity in the sectarian Greece of the Peloponnesian War), I'll instead concentrate on the rest of the man's commentary.
Herodotus may have been the world's first real historian (or at least the West's) but the science which all of us hold such an interest in has, with him, a very, very crappy, sensationalist, and blatantly ignorant base which is rooted, basically, in hearsay. He was no Thucydides, friends. Amongst the ranks of the already rather hard-to-trust ancient historians (certainly when compared to the modern science), Herodotus is one of the worst when it comes to accuracy. His way of describing Persian warfare alone is enough proof -- not to mention the enormous volume in information of how he incorrectly described wars, foreign practices, and other cultures.
You obviously have a bone or two to pick over this subject matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
First and foremost Greek nationalism and patriotism as a unifying force was virtually unknown at the time Herodotus was alive. Loyalties to the Greek 'race' was somewhat of a factor, especially given the widespread dislike of non-Greeks and the outright hatred of Sparta for its enslavement of fellow Greeks. However the argument that Herodotus wrote to inflate the achievements of Hellenic culture as a whole seems weak. He can certainly be taken to task over his figures and some of his claims but much of what he wrote was given to him either orally or through letters or other written documents.
Herodutus never quoted the Persian army at around 250,000 men, his quotes encompassed the entirety of Xerxes' expeditionary force and were much higher and even more spectacular, with estimates into the millions. 250,000 is an extraordinary number even for 481 B.C. but it is a number that modern historians believe to be quite credible, albeit it is at the top end of the credibility range (150-250,000 being the general average). One needs to take into account the contribution in manpower from Persia's various subject kingdoms as well as the necessary support personnel required to supply and maintain such an army and navy. Furthermore roughly 150 years later the armies that Darius II raised to face Alexander were, when taken alone or in combination, extraordinarily large for their day as well, especially the ones he fielded at Issus and Gaugamela. The combined manpower of Egypt, Asia Minor and the Middle East was obviously capable of fielding and maintaining a large army & navy back back in those days.
It's a matter of perspective and reading between the lines or in this case, the numbers...
Napoleon's Grand Army marched into Russia with over half a million men, an extraordinary number for a single unified force during the 19th century (as was the Russian army assembled to beat him). To the average person this has been accepted as being an entirely French force however we all know that Grand Army which marched into Russia also consisted of a huge number of troops from Prussia, Poland, Spain, Portugal, Westphalia, Saxony, Bavaria, Italy, etc., allied troops that accounted for more than half the total number.
Read the wrong article? Not really, its all part of a life-long study ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
So let me see where I shall begin... Ahh yes the Dialects.
Your assumption of the Ancient greeks not being able to communicate eachother and then the conjecture of the battle of thermopilae not being as we know it is in itself a logical fallacy.
Yes the greek language is characterised by various dialects as a result of Historical events, and the factors which contributed to its devellopment in to a City State system. You would have a chance of being right if you displaced your assumptions another 3 centuries to the past of the period in question here.
A major factor in what contributed to a system of City States in Greece was the difficult terrain, and lack of communication, indeed various Greeks of various regions had very little contact in the begining with eachother which after a couple of centuries contributed to the vocalic dialectisation of the Language.
Greeks speaking various dialects could actually comprehend one another in various degrees of difficulty which were directly linked to the geographical distance amongst them. meaning that tw dialects of neigboring regions were actually very easy to understand and comprehend by two people each comming from one or the other.
So in essence, your argument may apply here for the Greek Dark Age period or the begining of the classical perriod of Greece, 8th, 7th and with some reserve 6th centuries BC. (We shall not go beyond that period and the differences between Mycenaic Period and Dorian expansion/invasion).
However, by the 5th Century (The period of the Battle of thermopilae) Greek Civilisation had already made tremendeous sociological & cultural evolution, aswell as Greeks had become more cosmopolitan exchanging and being more in contact with one another as well as with other cultures. The greek language became more uniform.
Crucial to this uniformity was also the devellopments in Literature, song and theatrical plays (tragodies).
In the wake of Alexander the Great, all greeks including macedonian greeks spoke the "Koine" Greek, aka Common Greek, Althought some dialects were kept for Literature such as Attic, people spoke Koine amongst them. And Koine Greek is what evolved today to Modern Greek.
Corinth a know city of the Ancient world, only 49 miles from Athens, and a major Trade Center on the 6th Century, spoke a Doric Dialect while Athens, spoke the Attic-Ionic Dialect of greek.
Are you saying that the inhabitants of these two important City-States, Trade and Economic Centers ...could not understand eachother? If you do...good for you, nice opinion...but the Historical fact is agaist you, unless you can provide your own (which I very much doubt).
This is best Explained by Spino, which I agree with in his own analysis.Quote:
Simple answer: no.
Less simple answer: no. You see, this entire idea of sacrifice for freedom and all that was an invention of later generations, something pioneered by Herodotus and carried on strongly by the proponents of Hellenism (not to mention future Greek nationalists). It's a propaganda story that you're telling here, friend, something that I just debunked.
However, here is my own reply on the matter, since you accuse me of spreading propaganda, friend.
You see, the intire Idea of Propaganda, is a modern 20th Century Invention. While the terminology dates back to the 16th-17th century in the Catholic Church, the meaning of the term changed during the 20th century.
Knowing this fact, renders your whole argument about Herodotus trying to propagate nationalistic messages through his work, virtually moot. :P
I am a studdent of Human History, promoting propaganda goes against all the principles that render History a science in itself.
Here we have a fellow forumer that posts a thread asking to know more facts about what he saw in a movie, and here we have you Sir, jumping in Propagating the message that its all false and propaganda instead of helping the OP find his answers. And on top of it, debate the intervention in response to your own propagandist actions.
You seem to be very biassed against Herodotus, but again, your statements are just that, biassed propaganda, unless you can put forth valid sources and basis of your accusations. Your statements are what is actually Propaganda.Quote:
Inspiring, honorable, glorious, dulce et decorum est etc., etc., yada yada... but all values superimposed upon the event by centuries upon centuries of misinformation and propaganda, all based on that one piece of work delivered by our good friend Herodotus.
Thermopylae was a willing sacrifice in an attempt to boost morale and incite Unity. It succeeded at that 100 fold. if you fail to recognise this, I must question your capacity to evaluate information and rationalise a conclusion friend.Quote:
Thermopylae was an act of Spartan honor (e tan epi tas and all that) and Thespian bravery... and general stupidity. A small rear guard action that didn't effect anything in the long term.
This is very meaningfull in order to establish context and a basis upon which to refute your accusation of propaganda. Propaganda not only was not a possible Idea back then (as we saw above), but even if it were, it could not have been as effective as it is today.Quote:
This is meaningful to the debate in what way?
Since propaganda does nothing but appeal to the uninformed minds.
Spino replyed to this one very well. I need not add anything else except that you are again using modern terminology and methodology to discredit the work of a person more than 2000 years ago. How empirical is that of you?Quote:
Of course... Herodotus was extremely well-informed -- one hundred years later, without any kind of way (not to forget motivation!) to carry out empirical research of any kind.
Again, your bias of herodotus...Quote:
Herodotus may have been the world's first real historian (or at least the West's) but the science which all of us hold such an interest in has, with him, a very, very crappy, sensationalist, and blatantly ignorant base which is rooted, basically, in hearsay. He was no Thucydides, friends. Amongst the ranks of the already rather hard-to-trust ancient historians (certainly when compared to the modern science), Herodotus is one of the worst when it comes to accuracy. His way of describing Persian warfare alone is enough proof -- not to mention the enormous volume in information of how he incorrectly described wars, foreign practices, and other cultures.
If you have proof of the validity of all that which you say is propaganda, tangible verifiable and credible proof please come forth with it. If not what we are left with is the facts and the facts come from those that wrote them and we uncovered.
Now if you wish to express your own personal opinions on a certain subject, please take care of specifying to the one seeking answers that these are indeed your own conclusions and opinions, and dont present them in an assertive manner which missinforms rather than informs.
In all due respect your original reply is what is Propaganda.
As for your various and unfounded accusations of the reason Herodotus chose to bring forth Historical facts of his world and time. Have you considered the context before comming to these conclusions?
herodotus was from Halicarnassus, his work is written in Ancient Doric, not the Attic-Ionic that was spoken in his City State.
Have you ever wondered why?
Have you even considered the possibility that he may have tryed to appeal not only to the warring Spartans and Athenians but also to his fellow Halicarnassians since, they, during the Persian Wars were sided with persia and not the Greeks?
Have you considered the possibility that he may have simply wanted to appeal to them by conveying a simple message?
"here we are bowing to persia when across the sea, other greeks are ready to give their lives and the life of their king to preserve greek autonomy"
I am guessing not, but it is ok. You have the right to your opinion and your analysis, as much as I have to my own, which I just stated above about Herodotus. let us debate plausibility now.
What is missing from your assertions is context friend, and that can be very detrimental in any serious studdy of history.
From what a documentary I watched about the Greco-Persian wars (hyping 300) asserted that Xerxes was notourious for his temper. And that he tended to give orders in his fits of rage that he normally wouldn't. The dessecration of Leonidas' body and the burning of Athens are two examples. He even ordered Athens rebuilt as soon as the fire was out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
That was Mardonius. Xerxes had given him pretty much a free hand in Greece.Quote:
He even ordered Athens rebuilt as soon as the fire was out.
The whole dialect thing is blown out of proportion. There are various passages in Plato's works where he has Socrates or one of his pupils inviting some Theban, Boioteian, Thessalian who happened to be there at the time of the discussion (assuming they were true) to talk about the subject at hand. I suppose I can make a whole fuss out of this but you can see how you are wrong about Greek dialects.
Actually these estimates are quite realistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Source: http://www.umsystem.edu/upress/fall2006/hansen.htmQuote:
For 232 out of circa 1,000 city-states, the size of the urban center can be estimated, and for 636 city-states, we have an idea about the size of the territory. Employing a “shotgun method” Hansen derives approximate population figures and argues that, in the age of Alexander the Great, the population of all the Greek city-states must have totaled some 8-10 million people.
Also, according to Mogens Herman Hansen, the population of Ancient Greece increased by a factor larger than ten during the period from 800 BC to 400 BC, increasing from a population of 800,000 to a total estimated population of 10 to 13 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogens_Herman_Hansen
@Randarkmaan
Monarchy was abolished in Athens in 683 BC, the reforms of Solon established an aristocratic governement which lead to the period of the Tyrants. Specifically the tyrant Pissistratus and his sons from 561.
This "dynasty" of Tyrants was overthrown in 501-500, at which point Democracy was instated by the reforms of Cleisthenes.
Now it should be noted that the term "Tyrant" under the Ancient Greek context, did not mean someone who Tyranised the population, it carried no ethical implication and simply refered to anyone who had overthrown the established governement of a City-State. It was done more often than not with Popular Support, as most Tyrants of the then times came from Aristocratic Famillies, Land Owners, and had gained the popular support in their favor, through their influential powers (Giving land to the poor, freeing slaves etc).
The modern use of "Tyrant" refers to a Cruel Despot, that was not the case back then.
It was more like "We love this land-owner more than you therefore we support him".
So, did the Greek Victory of the Greco Persian wars save democracy, I would answer yes to this, since democracy was but an infant, only 10 years old at the Invasion of Darius, and 20 years old at the invasion of Xerxes.
If the Persians had been victorius and Athens never had the chance to become the big Cultural and Economic power that it became after the Persian Wars which permited the spread of Democratic Concepts to the rest of the Hellenic world, the advent of the great Philosophers and their influence to Western Ideology. Democracy would most probably not exist, or at least not reappear for a long time.
As for Sparta it was a militaristic type of governement, it had the Council, and it had 2 Kings, as to preserve a Balance. So it was not Monarchic, it was an Oligarchy.
The Athenian Democracy or, Classical Democracy is a Direct Democracy type of system as opposed to Representative Democracy type of system we enjoy today.
The terminology itself comes from 2 Greek Words. "Deimos" People and "Kratos" State, Power, so a People's State, the People's Power, a State governed by its People.
So the people voted on legislation and executive bills in their own right, and did not elect representatives that di so on their behalf.
Now, not all inhabitants of Athens were considered Citizens, but from those that were, the participation was constituted with no reference to economic class. Poor or Rich had same rights and participation as long as they were Citizens of Athens.
Citizenship was quite rigid by todays standards, only Males of Athenian Descent who had finished their military service (age 20+) were allowed to partake and vote. This effectivelly excuded, women, children, metics and slaves. Metics were permanent residents of Athens, that were not of athenian descent.
This population is estimated between a 30,000 individuals at its lowest and as high as 60,000 at its highest.
And, as difficult it is to immagine today, all of these people convened in a stadium (Amphitheater) refered to as the ecclesia, and debated and touk decisions (by vote) much like the Congress or Parliament representatives do today. Difference being that all citizens touk part on the process and were part of it with equal rights.
Other City-States addopted democratic systems not always exact copies of Athens, nevertheless, democratic.
---
Finally a comment on what is perceived as a general dislike of non-greeks. I think this is steming from the fact that Greeks called everyone else a Barbarian.
However, the word itself has a different sence under the greek Concept, a Barbarian today may refer to someone who is less civilized, uncultured, brutal, cruel.
But, back then, the word was used by the Greeks simply to refer to anyone else that did not speak Greek. (now if the Greek Dialects were that distinct then Greeks would call other Greeks barbarians too..but it is not the case).
It is innacurate to assume that Ancient Greeks dispised automatically all barbarian cultures they came in contact with. In fact greeks were very aware of the antiquity of other cultures such as the Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians and Mesopotamians from which they did borrow extensivelly.
You are however disregarding the Germanic idea of democracy, along with the Gallic one, and Phoenician one.
If I've understood correctly the Greeks were actually in general quite in awe of the vast and sophisticated Persia - which is why they had to fall back to the classic "sour grapes" of claiming moral superiority, the exact same way the Romans did with the Greeks not too long later.
Classic neighbour and class envy, in other words. :beam:
As for the Athenian democracy, I've seen it argued its unusually wide inclusiveness (ie. the classes below the hoplite rank also having a say) was the direct result of the importance of the navy for the city's power base, and hence the military importance of the lower classes which provided the rowers. "Trireme democracy" is a term I've seen it called by.
I've long had severe difficulties accepting this claim at a face value. First off so far as I know the first pioneers of "natural philosophy" were Ionian Greeks, that is, from the colonies on the coast of Asia Minor which for fairly obvious reasons spent a lot of time as Persian satrapies. Second, the Persians had a very hands-off approach to their provinces already out of purely practical considerations; an empire the size of theirs simply could not have been run with the means of communication available at the time without allowing the outlying regions a rather high degree of autonomy (the regional satraps for example tended to be virtual kings in all but name only, and but for their often somewhat formal subordination to the distant High King). In practice so long as the region paid its dues, raised troops for the army as requested and didn't cause trouble it was pretty much free to do as it pleased otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar
Nevermind now that the Romans and not a few other communities had quite similar systems going - the Republic was pretty much run by a copy of the usual Greek hoplite oligarchy for quite a long time far as I know, so even if the structures of the poleis of Hellas had by some strange occurrence not survived a period of Persian suzerainty (and they certainly lived through varying phases of entirely native autocracy well enough) there's no particular reason to assume the republican/democratic idea and tradition of governement would not have flourished in one or another of its many other incarnations.
Heck, the Greco-Roman version survived through the abolute autocracy of the Empire, its collapse and the turbulent period of warlords of the Migrations, the feudalism of the Middle Ages and the remergence of absolute monarchy in the Early Modern period well enough... not to mention that quite a few communities cheerfully used entirely autochtonous versions through it all.